Blog

Across the food and farming sector there is a growing recognition that traditional production models are under strain. Weather patterns are becoming more volatile, and the long term direction of climate change is now influencing decisions that once relied on stable seasons and predictable growing conditions. Businesses that depend on consistent crop performance are finding that resilience can no longer be assumed. It must be designed.

The challenge is not simply the weather itself. It is the way climate risk interacts with every part of a business. When a crop becomes more vulnerable, the whole chain feels the pressure. Continuity of supply, profitability, labour, succession planning and shareholder expectations all sit within the same system. When one part becomes unstable, the rest must adapt.

This raises an important question for many organisations: how do you build a production strategy that can withstand both short term shocks and long term shifts?

One of the first barriers is accepting that climate risk cannot be removed. It can only be understood and managed. This means exploring what different production models might offer in terms of risk, benefit and security of supply. Change could involve geography, supply chain design, innovation or adjacent activities. Each option carries its own implications, and each needs to be assessed with clarity rather than optimism.

Alongside this sits the wider company strategy. Many businesses are trying to balance immediate weather‑related challenges with long term climate trends. Labour availability, management succession and the expectations of owners or shareholders add further layers of complexity. These pressures do not exist in isolation. They influence decisions about investment, risk appetite and operational priorities. Understanding how they interact is essential for making choices that are both resilient and commercially sound.

There is also the human element. Customers, shareholders and staff often feel the strain of uncertainty before it becomes visible in the numbers. Their concerns can highlight areas of tension that deserve attention. Some issues can be addressed directly. Others are structural and need to be acknowledged without allowing them to dominate. The key is to identify which pressures can be influenced and which should sit outside the scope of a focused project. This prevents distraction and keeps decision making grounded.

Beyond the internal environment, businesses must also consider their wider stakeholders. Banks, insurers, logistics partners and policymakers all shape the operating landscape. Their expectations and constraints can either support or hinder strategic change. Taking these relationships to the right level of detail helps avoid surprises and ensures that any major shift is aligned with the realities of finance, regulation and supply chain capacity.

A structured approach to assessing value is vital. Hard value is often easier to quantify, but soft value can be just as important. Culture, confidence, leadership alignment and operational clarity all influence long term performance. A good decision making framework brings these elements together so that choices are made with a full understanding of their impact.

Finally, leadership insight matters. In many organisations there are people who already sense the direction of travel. They may have early ideas about what needs to change or where opportunities lie. Listening to these perspectives can help validate instinct and accelerate progress. It can also reveal blind spots or assumptions that need testing.

Building resilience in food production is not about reacting to the latest weather event. It is about stepping back, understanding the whole system and making deliberate choices about the future. Climate change is reshaping the landscape, but with clear thinking and structured analysis, businesses can position themselves to thrive rather than simply cope.